Is Film Forever?

Sometime between 1910 and 1914, fabled French actress Sarah Bernhardt was accosted by an angry fan, who was distressed to learn she was appearing in movies, i.e., La Dame Aux Camelias (1910), Queen Elizabeth (1912), etc. He couldn't believe someone of her stature in "the legitimate theatre" would stoop so low. Bernhardt, who was in her mid-sixties, explained that film was her one chance at immortality.

Almost from the beginning, the assumption has been that films are forever. Early television producers also made heroic efforts to serve posterity. During the early 1950s Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez insisted on producing the I Love Lucy series on film in front of a live audience. There were other multi-camera film shows, including My Little Margie, which might have been first. But the bottom line is that Lucy and Desi maintained ownership of their program in exchange for footing the bill for the extra cost of shooting on film.

That was probably the best deal ever made by a television producer. Nearly 40 years after they were made, the I Love Lucy shows are still entertaining people and earning dividends. You could make a good case for I Love Lucy being the derivation of deficit financing.

Today the production industry is at another historical juncture where important decisions are being made about the efficacy of narrative films. The ancient Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind. Audiences are fragmenting, network revenues are shrinking, licensing fees are falling, above the line costs are soaring, new channels of distribution are proliferating, and HDTV is beckoning.

Various combinations of these factors have created incredible pressures to reduce costs. Most of the pressure is being applied below the line. The questions seem technical, but the answers could affect the future viability of films. Some producers are asking if they can save money working in the 16mm or Super 16 formats, or by using 35mm film with three-perforations per frame instead of four? The answers are yes. Film and lab cost-savings for shooting 16mm or Super 16 film are around $16,000 for a 30 minute program. Use of a three-perforation 35mm frame can trim film and lab costs by around 25 percent.

There are resultant compromises made in image quality, but let's put that consideration aside, because it deals with subjective creative issues. Let's just consider whether producers working in smaller film formats are making decisions today which will mortgage their future tomorrow. Will their films be forever? To put that into proper perspective, let's agree that sometime before the end of this decade, there will be markets for recycling today's programs in digital HDTV format.

Here are a few facts you should consider. A conventional 35mm film frame has an image area of slightly less than half of a square inch. If you scan all of the analog visual information recorded on that frame and convert it to digital data for postproduction, you are going to fill-up approximately 40 megabytes of computer memory.

Here is another way to look at it. If you record all of that binary information onto a D-2 disk capable of storing one hour of NTSC video, there would only be enough memory capacity for some 17 to 20 seconds of film. In other words, the 35mm film frame is an incredibly rich repository for capturing and storing visual information.

A 16mm or Super 16 film frame is capable of capturing and retaining just a little more than one-fifth of that visual information. Is that sufficient for HDTV? The answer is yes in the short-term. But many people envision a time in the not-too-distant future when HDTV sets will offer 2000 lines of resolution, and will double as home computers. That WILL require conventional 35mm film resolution.

Some people think that Super 16 film is HDTV-compatible. That's true, but only up to a point. If you are shooting for NTSC or PAL release, image quality is exactly the same as conventional 16mm film. What Super 16 does give you is an aspect ratio which is compatible with the wide-angle 16:9 HDTV screen. That IS important because with conventional 16mm film, you are going to have to trim something off of every frame to get a wide-screen HDTV image.

And, because the 16mm and Super 16 frame is so much smaller, the film is comparatively fragile. Dirt, scratches and even grain, which is unnoticeable in 35mm format, might be apparent if a 16mm or Super 16 frame is converted to HDTV.

How about three-perforation per frame 35mm film? There are compromises in image quality, though it is certainly better than 16mm or Super 16 film. However, there are other limitations to be aware of. For example, Kodak has encoded all of its camera films with machine-readable bar code which can be used to automatically match individual frames of film to video edit decision lists. Many producers are already using this technology to expedite making higher quality PAL transfers directly from the negative rather than from NTSC masters. This also gives them a cut negative ready for any future HDTV distribution. There is developmental work being done, but so far, there is no software for frame-accurate matching three-perforation 35mm film with video edit decision lists. Another consideration is whether there is a theatrical market now or in the future for telefilms. For that, the conventional 35mm frame, is probably desirable.

Kodak offers a seminar to people interested in learning more about these matters. For information call (213) 464-6131, Larry Corn.

Gary Borton is General Business Manager & Vice President Western U.S. and Canada, Motion Picture & Television Imaging Eastman Kodak Company.